Chief Stipe

View the full article

View the full article

You don't appear to have comprehended either article. Both are pointing the finger at the process and the officials. But you keep plugging your conspiracy theories.

Are you and Thomaas one and the same? Regardless the focus should be on the Stipes AND the JCA.

So please explain why the clubs who get most of the resources and supposedly have professional full time management have the worst track surfaces? Namely - Ellerslie, Te Rapa, Awapuni, New Plymouth, Riccarton?!

In your initial post on this subject you inferred the opposite I.e. Mr Ellis was doing his mates at Cambridge Stud a favour! You can't have it both ways. Well maybe YOU can. The Jockey apparently was of the opinion that the filly would have won regardless of any interference. HOWEVER the Stipes AND the JCA are quite within their rights to ask the jockey to give evidence. Mr Ellis didn't prevent the jockey from giving evidence they just decided not to protest. Which is well within their rights. As for De Lore he got the process factually wrong in his article.

Wouldn't be able to use the mobile phone on an OZ racetrack!

Will this proposed piece of legislation allow the government to procure the New Plymouth grounds from local government? I recall not too long ago there was talk of not renewing the racing clubs lease.

Can we get back on topic please rather than get distracted on politics.

Rule Number(s): 534(1)Following the earlier Decision to decline the request to late-scratch FEARLESS from Race 9, the Training Partnership of D & E Haworth was charged with scratching the horse without permission to do so. (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 534(2)(b)Following the running of Race 6 Information No. A12303 was filed with the Judicial Committee. The Information stated that Ms E Haworth wished to scratch FEARLESS from Race 9, with the Stipendiary Stewards not believing that there were grounds to do so. (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following Race 1, Mr Goodwin lodged an information with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 638 (3) (b) (ii) in that J Fawcett used her whip excessively prior to the 100m on her mount TOUCH THE CLOUDS. At the outset of the hearing, Ms Fawcett confirmed that she understood the Rule and that ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 642(1)Following Race 1 (CR Grace/ Awassi NZ 2200) a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr J Parkes alleging that horse number 9 (BELINDABELLA) or its rider placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 7 (TAKE THAT), placed 2nd by the Judge. The information alleged interference ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following Race 2, Mr Goodwin lodged an information with the Judicial Committee alleging a breach of Rule 638 (3) (b) (ii) in that R Hannam used his whip excessively prior to the 100m on his mount KELLY’S INSPIRATION. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Hannam confirmed that he understood the Rule and that ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

But an owner is not a trainer.

I'm not sure what this argument is about but I've been to Levin and Foxton workouts and both had coffee and snacks available. You had to pay but that's ok.

They treat him like the little cute puppy pissing in the corner.

View the full article

View the full article

You would think that like other businesses trainers would include it in their base cost of training.

Can you please substantiate your claims.

https://www.racenews.bitofayarn.com/guineas-win-the-catalyst-for-australian-targets/ Support BOAY's Racenews!

25Transfer of surplus venues by Order in Council (1) This section applies if a racing code has made a reasonable attempt to negotiate the transfer of a surplus venue owned by a racing club (or clubs) to the code by agreement but— (a) the club (or clubs) has refused to enter into negotiations for the transfer; or (b) no agreement on the transfer has been reached. (2) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister,— (a) approve a proposal prepared by the racing code relating to the transfer of the surplus venue to the code (a transfer proposal), with or without modification; and (b) state the date on which the transfer takes effect (the transfer date). (3) A transfer proposal referred to in subsection (2) may be prepared by the code on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister. (4) The transfer proposal must— (a) state the names of the relevant racing code and racing club (or clubs); and (b) contain a description of the 1 or more surplus venues or identify a means by which, or a document in which, the surplus venues are described; and (c) state whether either or both of the following payments are warranted and should be made by the code following the transfer: (i) a payment to the relevant club (or clubs) to enable it to race at another venue: (ii) a payment to any person in recognition of a community interest in the surplus venue. (5) If the transfer proposal is approved under subsection (2),— (a) the surplus venue vests in the racing code on the transfer date, subject to any interests or encumbrances in existence on that date; and (b) the code must make any payment referred to in subsection (4)(c)(i) or (ii) that is warranted to be made. (6) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, approve an amendment to a transfer proposal approved under subsection (2) and, if approved, the amendment takes effect on a date specified in the order (which may be the transfer date or any later date). (7) An Order in Council made under this section must identify the transfer proposal or amendment approved, but need not incorporate it in the order.

Property of racing clubs The Bill introduces a suite of changes that will resolve historic property issues that have contributed to the decline of the industry. Two property objectives are introduced to guide decision making: the value of racing property should be retained in the industry, and the value of racing property should be used for maximum industry benefit. New provisions are introduced to support negotiations between clubs and codes on the utilisation of surplus venues. The Bill also introduces, as a backstop, a statutory decision-making process for the Minister for Racing to recommend an Order in Council to transfer property to the code. Provision is made for payments to the club and community, where these are warranted. Racing Industry Bill.pdf

Sadly we have lost a few home breds. I really felt Sacred Falls would have stepped into O'Reilly's shoes. Shame Waikato didn't purchase Brutal.